Nunn v. JPMorgan Chase Bank
64 Cal.App.5th 346
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2021Background
- The Nunns sued JPMorgan Chase in 2011 for wrongful foreclosure and related claims; the superior court granted summary judgment, which this court reversed on appeal (remittitur filed July 18, 2016).
- Under Code of Civil Procedure § 583.320 the Nunns had until July 18, 2019 (three years from remittitur) to bring the case to trial.
- At a May 16, 2019 case management/trial-setting conference (no reporter), the court proposed dates; the judge suggested January 13, 2020 after counsel indicated an earlier date was too soon and both lawyers said they had "no objection" to January 13, 2020; the Nunns were present and agreed.
- Chase moved to dismiss under § 583.320 (Aug. 30, 2019); the superior court dismissed Sept. 26, 2019 and entered judgment Jan. 30, 2020; thereafter the Nunns moved to correct the minutes and for a new trial asserting an oral agreement under § 583.330.
- The Court of Appeal (majority) concluded the May 16 interchange constituted an oral agreement under § 583.330 to extend the statutory trial deadline to January 13, 2020, reversed the dismissal, granted the writ to vacate the lis pendens expungement order, and remanded for further proceedings; Judge Streeter dissented.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether parties orally agreed in open court to extend the § 583.320 trial deadline | Nunn: counsel and plaintiffs agreed on record to Jan 13, 2020, which extends the statutory time under § 583.330(b) | Chase: the date was set by the court; mere acquiescence/no contemporaneous stipulation in minutes or transcript is insufficient | Court: the on-record "no objection" by both counsel and plaintiffs constituted an oral agreement under § 583.330, so the deadline extended to Jan 13, 2020 |
| Whether the trial court erred in denying motion to correct minutes of May 16, 2019 | Nunn: minutes omitted that the date was set by agreement to accommodate Chase and thereby extended the statute | Chase: no express waiver or stipulation appears in contemporaneous minutes or transcript; correction improper | Court: superior court abused discretion in summarily denying correction; settled statement (certified by presiding judge) supports that parties agreed |
| Whether denial of new trial motion was prejudicial/error | Nunn: denial relied on mistaken procedural ruling on minute correction and precluded relief based on oral-agreement theory | Chase: no evidence of an oral stipulation in minutes/transcript; new-trial denial proper | Court: denial compounded error—new-trial motion should have been considered in light of corrected record; reversal required |
| Whether lis pendens expungement order should stand given reversal of dismissal | Nunn: expungement premised on dismissal; with dismissal reversed, expungement must be reconsidered | Chase: judgment was valid and Nunns cannot show probable merit of real-property claims | Court: granted writ, vacated expungement order, and directed reconsideration consistent with reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller & Lux Inc. v. Superior Court, 192 Cal. 333 (Cal. 1923) (establishes that extensions of statutory trial time by agreement require clear, uncontrovertible evidence; parties must deliberately intend to extend statutory time)
- Smith v. Bear Valley Milling & Lumber Co., 26 Cal.2d 590 (Cal. 1945) (enforcement against defendants who executed a written stipulation and later attempted to reserve the right to dismiss; waiver/equitable principles may bar reneging)
- J.C. Penney Co. v. Superior Court, 52 Cal.2d 666 (Cal. 1959) (requires express terms to extend the statutory period or to expressly waive the right to dismissal)
- Govea v. Superior Court, 26 Cal.App.2d 27 (Cal. Ct. App. 1938) (oral in-court continuance entered in minutes estops a party from later moving to dismiss)
- Woley v. Turkus, 51 Cal.2d 402 (Cal. 1958) (applies estoppel where parties and court acted with the deadline in mind and postponement was by mutual arrangement)
- Munoz v. City of Tracy, 238 Cal.App.4th 354 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) (written stipulation to a trial date beyond statutory deadline extends the statutory period without explicit reference to the statute)
- Wright v. Groom Trucking Co., 206 Cal.App.2d 485 (Cal. Ct. App. 1962) (pretrial conference order setting trial beyond deadline does not itself prove a stipulation absent express recital or minutes showing agreement)
- Sanchez v. City of Los Angeles, 109 Cal.App.4th 1262 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003) (plaintiff’s acquiescence and counsel’s mistake about the deadline do not establish an oral extension; impracticability exception properly rejected)
- Gaines v. Fidelity Nat. Title Ins. Co., 62 Cal.4th 1081 (Cal. 2016) (reviews statutory scheme and standards of review for mandatory dismissal and exceptions)